Juno 21, 1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
1025 
NEW READING OE THE PETROLEUM 
ACTS. 
BY BOVEBTON REDWOOD, F.C.S. 
Secretary and Consulting Chemist to the Petroleum 
Association. 
Considerable misapprehension appears to prevail 
in reference to the Judgment recently delivered in 
the Court of Queen’s Bench in an appeal against a 
conviction under the Petroleum Acts. The judg¬ 
ment in question involves a new reading of the Acts 
of a somewhat unexpected nature; and a very general 
impression exists that, whereas a licence lias only 
hitherto been needed for such petroleum as gives off 
inflammable vapour below 100° F., it is now, in con¬ 
sequence of this judgment, unlawful to keep any de¬ 
scription of petroleum, except in pursuance of a 
licence. This opinion is in fact embodied in the 
following notice, which has been circulated in the 
town of Cambridge :— 
“ Borough of Cambridge. The Court of Queen’s 
Bench having decided that all persons dealing (without 
a licence) in petroleum or any product thereof, whether 
it gives off an inflammable vapour at a temperature of 
less than 100 degrees Fahrenheit or not, are liable to the 
penalties imposed by the Petroleum Acts. Notice is 
hereby given, that proceedings will be taken against all 
persons found dealing therein, contrary to the provisions 
of the Petroleum Acts, on and after the loth day of June 
instant. 
“By order, Edmond Foster, Town Clerk. 
“ Guildhall, 5th June, 1871.” 
It will, however, be evident from a consideration 
of the facts of the case that such a view is not in ac¬ 
cordance with the decision of the Court. 
The appellant, an oil merchant, was charged be¬ 
fore the Surrey magistrates, under the Petroleum 
Acts, with keeping, otherwise than for private use, 
within fifty yards of a dwelling-house, a quantity of 
petroleum without being licensed in accordance with 
the said Acts. On the hearing of the information it 
was admitted by both parties that the petroleum in 
question did not give off inflammable vapour at a 
temperature of less than 100° F.; nevertheless, the 
magistrates convicted the appellant and adjudged 
him to pay a fine of ten shillings and costs, a case 
being granted for the Court of Queen’s Bench. The 
case was argued before Mr. Justice Blackburn and 
Mr. Justice Mellor; Mr. Grantham appearing for 
the appellant and Mr. Lord for the respondent. Mr. 
Grantham contended that as the petroleum in ques¬ 
tion did not give off’ inflammable vapour below 100° 
F., it did not come within the following definitions 
contained in the Acts of 1862 and 1868:—■ 
prove that it was not “ petroleum ” within the mean¬ 
ing of the Acts ; since the Legislature, by the use of 
the words “ shall include,” evidently intended that 
“ petroleum ” (legally used) should mean, not only 
all such products of petroleum and the other sub¬ 
stances mentioned in the Act as give off inflammable 
vapour under 100° F., but.also petroleum itself (as 
distinguished from the products of petroleum) uncon¬ 
ditionally. Mr. Grantham argued that the words 
“ shall include ” had always been construed in the 
sense of “ shall be confined to,” and that, although 
it was possible that a wrong word might have been 
used, yet that the intention of the Legislature was in 
accordance with what he contended for. In this 
sentiment the Court could not concur, Mr. Justice 
Blackburn remarking —“ It is very common in the 
interpretation clause of an Act of Parliament to say 
that a parish shall include a township, but it never 
could be contended with success that a parish is 
confined to a township.” Mr. Grantham was un¬ 
prepared for this distinction being drawn between 
petroleum and the products of petroleum, and there¬ 
fore found himself in a difficulty. The liquid in 
question had, as is usual in such cases, been spoken 
of by both sides as petroleum; the term petroleum 
being, of course, used in its ordinary commercial 
sense; in fact, it had been admitted by the appellant 
to be petroleum commercially speaking, though it 
was denied that it was “ petroleum” within the mean¬ 
ing of the Acts. Now, however, it was clear that, 
according to the definition of the Court, the liquid 
should have been termed a product of petroleum 
wliicli, scientifically, it undoubtedly w r as. This Mr. 
Grantham explained, and the following argument 
ensued:— 
Mr. Justice Blackburn : “ I thought the case had found 
that it was what is called petroleum.” 
Mr. Grantham: “ The term, as used in the trade, is 
applied to that which you go into a shop and buy, and 
at once put in your lamp and burn.” 
Mr. Justice Blackburn : “ I should have inferred that 
that was a product of petroleum, not petroleum itself.” 
Mr. Grantham : “It is assumed that that which is the 
subject of the argument is what is commonly called 
petroleum.” 
Mr. Justice Blackburn : “ If there has been a mistake, 
and that this was not petroleum, but the product of 
petroleum, he has lost his ten shillings; the penalty is 
nothing; it is the principle.” 
Mr. Grantham : “If there be any doubt as to that, I 
should ask that the case may be re-stated.” 
Mr. Justice Blackburn: “It would cost twenty times 
as much as it is worth. Assuming this to be petroleum, 
and not a mere product, it is required that it should be 
licensed, although it does not throw off this vapour.” 
1862. “ 1 Petroleum,’ for the purposes of this Act, 
shall include any product thereof that gives off an in¬ 
flammable vapour at a temperature of less than one 
hundred degrees of Fahrenheit’s thermometer.” 
1868. “For the purposes of the Petroleum Acts, 1862, 
1868, including all local acts and bye-laws relating to 
petroleum or the produce thereof; 1 petroleum ’ shall in¬ 
clude all such rock-oil, Rangoon oil, Burmah oil, any 
product of them, and any oil made from petroleum, coal, 
schist, shale, peat, or other bituminous substance, and 
any product of them, as gives off an inflammable va¬ 
pour at a temperature of less than one hundred degrees 
of Fahrenheit’s thermometer.” 
The Court, however, held that it w r as not sufficient 
to show that the petroleum in question did not give 
off’ inflammable vapour below r 100° F. in order to 
Third Series, No. 52. 
The case therefore proceeded on the assumption 
that the liquid in question w r as petroleum as distin¬ 
guished from the products of petroleum, or, in other 
words, w r as crude petroleum, Mr. Justice Blackburn 
remarking: “ The only question in this case is, 
whether that [the interpretation clause] does not in¬ 
clude crude petroleum, or natural petroleum, Which 
gives off this vapour or not.” The decision of the 
Court wall bo evident from the following extracts 
from the judgment:— 
Mr. Justice Blackburn: “I think the object and in¬ 
tention of the Legislature was, that petroleum, as im- 
* This quotation and similar ones are from a transcript ot 
the shorthand writer’s notes, which Mr. Grantham has as¬ 
sured the w'riter are substantially correct. 
